It’s always a peculiar experience to sit through a film that dramatizes events that you saw unfolding in real life since it almost feels redundant (and we often forget that films aren’t solely made for the present generation, but also for those that are still to come, with the contemporary dramas of today being the historical works of the future), and often doesn’t add too much to our understanding of a particular subject. Yet, these films still serve an important purpose, not only in how they present a more artistically rounded version of the story but also in a way that is often quite interesting, taking a couple of liberties where they are necessary while still retaining the spirit of the story. In the case of Scoop, which is based on the non-fiction book Scoops: Behind the Scenes of the BBC’s Most Shocking Interviews by Sam McAlister, the events are very recent, anyone old enough to watch and comprehend it very likely knows enough about the subject matter already, and the chance to learn more about it is rather slim, but not entirely impossible. The film, like the book, focuses on the events surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein and the relationship he had with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York and supposed “favourite son” of Queen Elizabeth II, whose friendship with the reviled sex offender proved to go from the mildly painful thorn in his side to the very reason he completely fell out of favour and lost everything that he had spent his entire life cultivating, including his military titles and duties as a member of the royal family. A very traditional film that draws on prominent aspects of this news story and the events surrounding them, Scoop (adapted by Peter Moffat and directed by the ever-reliable Philip Martin) is a solid and entertaining film that has all the right ideas and maybe overly conventional, but never once proves to be anything less than genuinely thrilling in quite a unique way.

Journalism dramas are essentially a dime a dozen by this point – audiences seem to be just as interested in the investigation of certain cases as they are in the case itself, which likely goes back to the fact that we are a curious species, and have a morbid desire to know all the details, especially when relating to someone as high profile as a member of the British royal family, which has remained in the public eye for centuries and always been the beacon of supposed elegance and decorum, despite the plethora of scandals they have encountered over the years. The investigation into Prince Andrew’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was one of the most prominent news stories at the time, so it makes sense that it would be crafted into a film that often plays like an intense thriller, with the opening scenes that establish the foundation of what would become the primary evidence used against him years later is genuinely thrilling, as are the detailed examinations of the hardworking journalists, researchers and strategists from both sides that worked on the case, either as a way of proving the Prince’s guilt or defending his actions. It’s a very traditional film, and Martin puts his experience as a stage and television director to exceptionally good use, crafting a straightforward, unfurnished drama that doesn’t need to resort to any kind of trickery or cinematic manipulation to tell this story. In the film, as in real life, there was a demand that the central interview around which this story is based be bare and straightforward, “two chairs, six feet apart” being the very definition of a direct interview in which neither side had the space to hide anything. This mentality is applied to the film overall, which is smart enough to know that the foundation of the story is strong enough as it is, so it doesn’t require anything particularly complex or daring to be effective, and that it’s more than appropriate to keep it subtle and engaging rather than relying on hysterics and melodrama to tell this story effectively.

Throughout the film, Scoop makes sure that it underlines the fact that this is not merely a film about the Prince Andrew interview – in fact, while it is engaging and serves as the centrepiece of the story, there is a lot more context and narrative that goes into the film than initially expected. This is not only a film about journalists working feverishly to unearth the truth about a prominent member of the world’s most famous family being caught liaising with a known sex offender and having his actions called into question, but a story of the perversion of power, the ability of the media to spin different narratives depending on which side they choose to promote, and the general perceptions around sexual violence and moral deviations as an unfortunate aspect of modern society. Epstein’s arrest only opened the floodgates and brought many names to the forefront, some of them quite unexpected, and throughout this film, we see just how important the smallest details can be in unravelling something as ironclad as the royal family, as well as how fast they can adjust their approach to a particular subject to preserve their brand, even if it means essentially cutting public ties and punishing one of their most prominent members. It’s very interesting that Prince Andrew is the only member of the royal family who appears as a character in the film – many others are factored into the narrative, but as unseen presences that guide the narrative and how the palace responded to these allegations, but the lack of on-screen appearances means that the film is evoking a similar distance that the royal family did in reality, quite an eerie sensation that creates the illusion that Prince Andrew was essentially forcing himself into indefinite social exile as a result of his actions. It’s a fascinating character study that deconstructs people on both sides of the media divide and presents quite an unsettling and deeply provocative glimpse into how the media functions, and the ways in which it can turn something quite small into a near-earth-shattering event that changes our perception on one of the most sacrosanct institutions still in existence.

The challenge with making a film such as Scoop, which takes place recently enough for most of us to remember the interview, or at least be aware of the major players in the story, is that these actors are tasked with playing characters who we know and can recognize, and thus there isn’t much room for artistic liberty, but also the simple act of impersonation without depth would be just as inappropriate, since it would just make the film seem hackneyed and exploitative, rather than having any merit outside of the individual narrative itself. The casting was always going to be key, so it is very intriguing to see just how wonderful a lot of these actors are in bringing these characters to life. The film employs an ensemble, but it is essentially focused around four people – on one side we have the researcher played by Billie Piper the journalist played by Gillian Anderson, and on the other the dutiful palace official portrayed by Keeley Hawes, and the royal that is brought to life by Rufus Sewell. Essentially crafting the film as an elaborate game of media-infused chess, in which every character is a piece of a much larger game of strategy, is an intriguing approach, and allows the actors the space to play these people as authentically as possible, while still going in their direction in some ways. Most of this occurs in the margins, in the day-to-day life of these characters as they deal with the challenges surrounding this interview. Piper and Anderson are fantastic, playing these women fighting to have a space at the table exceptionally well, which hearkens back to the fact that Scoop is one of many films produced in the wake of the MeToo movement, in which women were finally able to come forward and address the predatory behaviour they encountered in the workplace. However, as difficult as it is to praise actors playing the villains in such a story, Scoop is most effective in the moments when Hawes and Sewell are on screen – the former plays a person who is so dedicated to her work, she struggles to reconcile her emotions with her duty as someone committed to preserving the image of the royal family, whereas the latter plays Prince Andrew in such an unflattering and repulsive way, it never allows us even a moment of doubt towards his guilt. It’s a strong cast that works together exceptionally well and tells this story with precision and a lot of complex ideas, which elevates a relatively simple film.

Artistically, Scoop doesn’t offer anything out of the ordinary, which turns out to be an asset to the overall production – a film such as this doesn’t need to be anything remarkable or complex, and instead just needs to offer the straightforward, honest facts that are delivered without bias and in a way that promotes the truth rather than challenging conventions too much. As a whole, it is a generally very strong film, and through its willingness to engage with the material, rather than just relying on overt sensationalism and the shock factor, it proves to be quite a compelling film. The performances are remarkable, and every member of the cast (from the leads to the supporting players who only have one or two scenes) works hard to bring these characters to life. It is difficult to make a film such as Scoop in an era where we have access to so much information and footage that is recreated here, such as the centrepiece interview and the news reports surrounding the events (the recreation of the Newsnight interview that we all saw in 2019 is remarkable, and both Anderson and Sewell deserve an abundance of praise for the precision with which they recreate the interview, right down to the cadence of every word), but the film manages to do so through the simple fact of making sure everything was kept straightforward and honest throughout. It’s a fascinating and brilliantly constructed film with many complex ideas woven into a relatively simple narrative, which serves not only be a dramatization of these events but also as a deeply moving character study about the people behind it, particularly the hard-working journalists who put their careers on the line to go up against one of the most powerful families in the world. It’s captivating, sympathetic where it needs to be, and essentially as entertaining and thought-provoking as any traditional investigative thriller should be, and while it may not boast much in terms of an inventive structure or anything particularly daring, it easily joins the canon of great films about the incredible and vital work done by journalists when it comes to delivering the truth to the public, a valiant but sometimes dangerous effort, as shown throughout this timely and fascinating film.